There are events in seemingly far away places that have significance way beyond their immediate implications. Suez in 1956 was one, and saw the end of the myth of the UK as a superpower. Afghanistan 2021 feels the same, although we cannot know as yet, of course.
The similarity is in the blow that events can deliver to the perception of a state, its power, and the over-arching policy it has pursued. Even if the UK long ago ceased to be a power, its actions in the shadow of the USA under the guise of a supposed special relationship let it perpetuate its wish that it had its previous status and influence, and the US went along with the game, having learned the cost of isolation in the 30s.
But now not only has the UK been defeated in Afghanistan, as is very obviously the case, so too has the US fallen, and in a way that feels more significant than the failure in Vietnam. That was a proxy war, where the East and West fought out their ideological disputes in a country where the local populace were considered expendable. The defeat in Afghanistan is nothing like that. Intensely unpopular as the Taliban are with many - including vast numbers in Afghanistan, I am sure - such movements cannot exist unless they are sheltered and supported within communities. That is the way of all movements of this type. In that case, this was not a move in a proxy war. This was a defeat. With that consequences will occur.
No longer will the US feel invincible. It is not.
No longer will it also seek to march into states to impose its world view, as it has done so often.
And no longer should it expect others to coalesce around its view when it has so obviously failed to consult its supposed partners on the fall of Afghanistan.
This then is a massive moment for the role of the US in the world. It does not create a vacuum, but the risk that one might follow - which China will all too willingly seek to fill - seems very real at present.
And where does Britain fit into this? In a sense it does not. The US did not consults us, and is still not apparently telling us what it is doing in Kabul. We were not a player. There was no special, relationship. Our opinion was not worth having. It did not matter to the US. The pretence is over.
With that the vestige of British power, built on the coat-tails of the 1940s and the mutually advantageous myths formed since then, has gone. We are now just a rather remote, small, and fairly insignificant state who is just one amongst many. The delusion that we are otherwise has to go.
But will the delusion disappear? Will we, with its demise, stop building aircraft carriers that were strategically useless decades before they were designed? Will we stop thinking ourselves exceptional? And will an England thwarted become ever more aggressive towards its last vestiges of empire - those states it subjects to its rule within the supposed United Kingdom, which increasingly feels anything but that?
These are big questions. Only time can provide the answers. But I have a feeling that everything has changed. The image of British power has withered away. If all involved now deal with the reality for the these islands and their future that might be for the better. If at the same time we stop hectoring and abusing the world and actually learn to live with and work alongside it, so much the better too. But will we do that? That's anyone's guess. The wise will hope that we do.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The wise aren’t in charge. Indeed, in any of the major political parties in England, is there anyone competent to take charge? Somehow I doubt it.
The truth is that British hard power is tiny. The navy, army and air force are all shadows of their former selves. We could not carry on in Afghanistan by ourselves, let alone in Libya or Iraq or Syria. We would not be able to retake the Falkland Islands today. There is no way we can even pretend to confront China. We’d struggle to send sufficient forces back to Northern Ireland if needed. We can barely defend our coastline or airspace. And Brexit (plus our buffoonish Prime Minister and government) has crippled our soft power. It has taken 65 years but perhaps we will finally recognise what Suez signified. How much longer can we expect to keep a permanent seat on the UN Security Council?
A remote, small and fairly insignificant permanent member of the UN Security Council with the world’s 6th largest GDP and English speaking colonial outposts around globe suggests the delusion is good for a while longer.
UK did have soft power throughout the world. Institutions like the BBC were highly regarded. So the permanent seat on the UN Security Council was a given in the aftermath of victory in WWII. UK defence forces were still very strong and had stetegically positioned bases all over the globe.
Totally different ball game now. Empire gone, armed forces depleted, diplomacy in tatters, gangsters in charge.
UK can’t afford to project hard power any more. Only 40 years ago, Thatcher defied the UN and US to send the Task Force to the Falklands. Impossible today.
The UN seat will be gone in a few years, no matter what. Scottish Indy will accelerate the process.
It indeed has a Suez feeling about it. That ended the global pretensions of Britain and France – even if, paradoxically, it boosted nostalgia and the projection of optical illusions about these global pretensions. Now it’s the turn of the US. It confirms that we are now firmly in the East Asian century.
We have thoughtlessly and carelessly allowed the trashing of whatever “values” we previously espoused in the West. For me the most stomach-churning was the sight of the political successors of Roosevelt and Churchill trashing the UN in 2002. But adherence to the dogmas of this misnamed neo-liberalism has done the most damage.
Let me try to put the long echoes of Suez in a personal perspective.
On the morning of that invasion, I joined a classmate in horrified revulsion as we travelled to school on the top of a Glasgow tramcar. It is that long ago. I was 13. The ‘withering’ has been closer to geological erosion than biological decay.
But I agree, for eventually the cliff is so undercut that it tumbles into the now overheated seas. An apt image for the isolationist shrinking dump that Brexitania has become. Perhaps as the country demonstrably falls apart even a few of the Tory voting English will notice. India finally recognised the truth in WW2 and the world nearly all twigged in 2016.
Now, who – outside of the BBC – is surprised by the fall of Afghanistan?
As the UK’s influence diminishes, I believe it is time to move away from using “British” as the term for nationality for four reasons:
– It is based on an historical geographic term which actually excludes a constituent part (Northern Ireland)
– It is misunderstood around the world due to it’s use as a synonym for England (when I lived in the USA people were often confused that I was Scottish and British)
– The term is often deemed poisonous due to its association with “the Empire”
– It already alienates significant numbers of people in the UK
Rather than find a new collective for UK citizens, let us just use our actual nationality.
Good suggestion
Why not ‘European’ ?
If it’s I good enough for the goose to package all of Central, East and South Asians into Asian ; and all of Africa into Africans surely it’s adequate for us.
If we need to define ourselves in detail I am sure there are Counties, Towns and villages available.
Ask the Catalans.
What a very condescending, and if I may say so colonial, attitude. You may think of everyone who comes from Africa as an ‘African’ but those who come from, say, Nigeria, Egypt, Zimbabwe or Somalia are proud of their countries and national identity. You should try asking some.
I didn’t think my sarcasm was that well concealed;-)
Adam,
I’m not sure about that. I can understand that many in the ethnic minority groups would have a problem calling themselves English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish.
British sounds a more inclusive option. Why not simply let people choose the term they prefer?
Jim,
I think you miss the point. “British” is not a properly inclusive term; many of those ethnic minority groups you mention have historically been on the wrong end of British colonial behaviour so why would they have a problem being Indian Scots or Pakistani English as opposed to British.
I don’t propose a draconian ban on people being able to refer to themselves as British, just that the official term be removed from the governing lexicon as it is potentially divisive as well as being inaccurate.
To the extent that I care at all, I’m not happy with any of them. As a matter of fact my origins and current place are all in England. But ‘British’ feels like identification with the colonial mindset of Westminster and Whitehall, ‘English’ with a petty xenophobic nationalism.
As a Jersey resident of Anglo-Welsh ancestry, I feel I have no good claim to any wider or narrower identity than British for myself.
The Taliban seems to have done well because the people who support it are in the countries that have not been held accountable.
It is common knowledge that Saudi Arabia is actually quite a hardline Islamic state (was Bin Laden not a Saudi?) of sorts and who can be sure what other countries in that region have also acted to support the Taliban?
The West did not want to take on Saudi Arabia because of out dependency on cheap oil and so found other states to take out on revenge for 11/9.
When the Russians wanted to get out, the Americans refused to help and kept giving the repressive and extremist Taliban funding and weapons because it suited them to do so.
It is this sort of fickle attitude that has led us to this place today. It is the same deliberate blindness that leads to the murder of a certain Mr Kashoggi for example.
The UK has been withered for some time.
We went along with the Bush Jnr project on the promise that we could influence our cousins. Infact, we did not because as pointed out previously, people like Rove, Wolfowitz, Pearl and Chaney were so good at creating their own reality, like the good people at Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley for example. When you write the rules, how can you lose, right?
My desire is that instead of poodling along on a lead with the Yanks, the UK starts to put some clear blue water between it and the States and just goes it alone. Forget NATO, forget the the UN and its bollocks veto culture. These post war institutions have been overcome.
Just get out there and make friends with who we like , just keep our heads down, look after our own and offer a safe haven when we can.
The answer to much of the worlds woes lies in negotiation, tolerance and agreement. Not confrontation and its proxy versions. The answers lie in talking.
That is what politics is actually about and should be.
Never mind the union jack, a country doing the above would be one I could be proud of.
Saudi Arabia is predominantly Sunni and sees Shia dominated states, such as Iran, as potential enemies. The Afghan population is majority Shia but the Taliban is Sunni. It would seem natural to the Saudis to support them.
No-one has mentioned the EU’s role, or lack of, in this discussion.
Did the EU countries let down Britain, Canada and America by choosing to offer no more than token support or was it a smart move on their part? Maybe it was both?
On the military side of things, what role should the EU and its member states have had in Afghanistan, as distinct from NATO? Not counting the UK now, 21 of the remaining 27 EU member states are in NATO anyway, and several of the other six contributed too through the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. If the US had asked, I’m sure Cyprus and Malta would have been there too. But very much the bulk of of the money and the forces came from the US, supported by the UK, and many others. An example of the composition (some years ago) here: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/sep/21/afghanistan-troop-numbers-nato-data
On the civil, economic and development side of things, I believe the EU was involved, eg https://ec.europa.eu/international-partnerships/where-we-work/afghanistan_en But no doubt more could have been done.
The British Empire and the supposed global dominance or major international player role that the Uk could boast of really ended with the fall of Singapore in 1942 which fell to the smaller but superior forces of the Japanese. Even in 1899 when British imperialism seemed overwhelming they were held at bay by a group of Dutch farmers at the start of the Boer War in South Africa. Britain had a job to find enough fit enough army recruits to fight this war. Also, the dominance of British industry and commerce was being well challenged by the US, Germany, and other fast-growing industrial countries by the end of the 19th century. The mauling and damage done to Britain in the 14-18 war weakened Britain and so became a lesser power than the US who could have taken a leading global role if they had not pursued an isolation policy until Pearl Harbour.
The problem is we have followers, of public wants, rather than leaders of the public’s good. As long as we have a system that allows such short term is to be a priority we will never have a role in the world, or any where. Even more so now that we are ex EU.
The problem is we have followers, of public wants, rather than leaders of the public’s good. As long as we have a system that allows such short term is to be a priority we will never have a role in the world, or any where. Even more so now that we are ex EU.
“No longer will the US feel invincible. It is not.”
I do remember the same thing being said in 1975 when Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese Army. They did appear to learn their lesson for a time but later managed to unlearn it after the events of 911.
The US is still going to be the world’s military superpower for the foreseeable future. It will always win in a straightforward military contest but neither the Vietnam war nor most wars since have been what anyone can term straightforward.
Invading countries like Iraq and Afghanistan is the easy bit for the USA. Their failure has been in not knowing what to do afterwards.
Mr Clark,
This is not 1975. Isolationism, which has a long and powerful American history, was not then a respectable political position in the US, since Roosevelt decisively defeated it. Since Trump however, it is now the prevailing orthodoxy. In 1975 the Soviet Union’s future was terminal. There was no competition for geoplotical supremacy, post-1945 for the US, which represented unparalleled economic success, and military and political authority throughout most of the world.
Now we have China (PRC), which will potentially possess a larger economy than the US within a decade, and perhaps for the first time in over four thousand years, the ‘Central Kingdom’ (Zhong guo), faces outward and decides that its 1.4Bn people should assert their authority in the world. India, reborn in the the age of post-imperialism has rediscovered its enormous economic capacity, which had been lost in British captivity for two centuries, and taken long to recover.
The US is no longer exclusively and universally considered the authoritative beacon of liberty in the world, while Britain’s weak geopolitical position in the world has now been cruelly exposed by America’s retreat, and at last the UK has been obliged to face the real meaning of Empire it left behind; in the rise of India (and other former colonies) from the detritus, the ashes of Empire we left behind us. We are haunted now by the trail of suffering we left behind in the making of Empire, and had sought to bury in platitudes, or writing our history and their history for them.
At the very point NATO’s hollowness has itself become exposed by American Isolationism, and Europe must rethink its own delicate position in the world, we in the UK are suddenly faced with the real geopolitical consequences of Brexit and the phantasy of ‘Global Britain’; just when Britain and the EU of necessity should act as one, in concert, we are further apart.
We are Europeans; that is both a geographical and a deep cultural fact. The EU was the vehicle we had built, with difficulty in the 20th century for this purpose, and without the illusions of perfection, but essentially for a 21st century world; a work-in-progress definitely, but whether we acknowledged it or not, it was our real hope for the future; and a prospect at least with a capacity to change and develop in all our interests: yet in Britain we simply walked away when the going became tough, trusting totally in the perpetuity of a Special Relationship that was never defined (the closest relationship for the US is not with Britain – which was exclusively our self-created, weak phantasy, which Suez should have reminded us – but Israel).
In reality, we have chosen to retreat, completely alone into Splendid Isolation. Think about that.
Thank you John. Your usual cool analysis.. The U.K. has burnt its boats with Europe whilst pinning its faith in a disinterested USA, and an increasingly hostile China.
As for Afghanistan, those gloating over some kind of defeat of ‘imperialism’, whilst a group of naked Islamofascists with ambitions for a caliphate (In other words, an Islamic Empire) take over, really do need to grow out of their school boy Marxism. Or given the callousness, Stalinism. Varoufakis leading the charge with his advice to Afghan women to ‘hang on in there’. Hang being an unfortunate term though beating and stoning is preferred.
It is just that element of the Left that massively damages Labour’s chances.
A succinct and accurate summary on Afghanistan’s situation. What a shame that the board of governors at the BBC did not see it as clearly.
Ed note: please do not copy whole articles into here. I can them be deemed to have breached copyright
You have to be quite selective
The withering of Britain to which Richard alludes started in 2010 with the austerity policies of Cameron/Osborne, and Cameron’s complacency and stupidity in agreeing to the 2016 referendum. The disastrous effects of that referendum outcome, which austerity was partly resposible for, have withered it further.
The lying, incompetence and delusional rubbish talked by the Leavers has ruined Britian’s reputation on the world stage, taken us out of the one body which gave us real influence in the world and in which we had real influence (possibly more than we deserved) and will probably lead to the end of the UK when the Scots decide they’ve had enough of an English politics that gave us a man like Johnson with a majority of 80 as Uk PM.
And the other source of real (soft) power Britain possessed, the BBC, has been under sustained attack since 2010 from the Tories, who’ve reduced its funding by 30% and are now trying to browbeat it into becoming the same as most of the UK’s media, which provide largely uncritical support for Tory governments, no matter how corrupt or incompetent they are.
There’s a certain irony here of course. The chest beating, John Bull, “Global Britain” union flag waving right wing nationalists are the very ones who’ve done, and are doing the most, to reduce diminish and destroy Britain.
Withering Britain indeed.
[…] By Richard Murphy, a chartered accountant and a political economist. He has been described by the Guardian newspaper as an “anti-poverty campaigner and tax expert”. He is Professor of Practice in International Political Economy at City University, London and Director of Tax Research UK. He is a non-executive director of Cambridge Econometrics. He is a member of the Progressive Economy Forum. Originally published at Tax Research UK […]
The Mouse and the Bull (Aesop’s Fables)
“A mouse bit a bull on the nose and slipped into a hole in a wall before the bull could react. The bull charged at the wall without making any impression time and again until he had worn himself out, at which the mouse darted out and bit the exhausted bull on the nose again. The bull could do nothing except fume with anger”
Fables should be studied carefully.
I was eight years old when the Suez crisis occurred and I remember visual news footage of it vividly, but not any of the commentary. It coincided with my family getting its first television and for a couple of months I avidly watched everything I could. I believe there was only one channel at the time, or, in any case, it was permanently on the BBC. At school I used to talk about the previous night’s viewing with the only other person I knew who had one of these newfangled devices at home.
I have always had the feeling that something very important happened then, but if it were not for the arrival of the TV it would probably have passed me by completely.